Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only behavioral detail is 'No identifiers are retained', which addresses privacy but not side effects or mutation. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, performs any write operations, or has other impacts. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, yet it omits crucial side-effect information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and easily readable, consisting of a single sentence. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, leaving the core function ambiguous. It is not overly verbose, but the lack of detail reduces its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not explain what 'classification' entails, what input combinations are valid, or what the output structure will be. There is no output schema, so the description should provide that context, but it does not. This makes the tool's behavior and results unpredictable to the user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (url, host, json, zone), covering 100% of them. The tool description does not add any semantic meaning to these parameters or clarify how they relate to the classification. Following the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Show how this request is classified' but does not define what 'classified' means or what output the user should expect. It lacks specificity about the tool's actual function beyond the vague verb 'Show'. Without referencing the parameters or the tool name 'compatibility', the purpose remains unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools like 'normalize-url' or 'validate-json'. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is the appropriate choice. The user is left without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, though time-related tools (timezone, tz-utc, utc-time) and URL-related tools (citation, normalize-url, domain-shape) share overlapping domains. However, each tool's specific output and intent are clear enough to avoid confusion.
All tools use a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens naming convention (e.g., normalize-url, status-catalog, utc-time). The pattern is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer function from name.
The server exposes 11 tools, which is a reasonable number for a general-purpose utility. Each tool serves a distinct function without being redundant or excessive, fitting well within the typical range.
The tools cover a broad set of utilities (time, URL parsing, HTTP status, JSON validation, robots.txt), but the server name suggests a clock focus. While time-related functionality is well represented, the additional URL and HTTP tools indicate a mixed-purpose design rather than a fully comprehensive single domain.